75-year-old human cloned for the production of stem cells

Technique may help with therapies, but is also used to clone animals.

Several years ago, as the therapeutic potential of stem cells was first being recognized, the only way to create them was to harvest cells from an early embryo. That embryo could come from the large collection of those that weren't used during in vitro fertilization work. But to get one that was genetically matched to the person who needed the therapy, researchers had to create an embryo that's a genetic duplicate of that individual—meaning they had to clone them.

With the development of induced stem cells, work on this approach largely fell by the wayside—induced cells were easier to create and came without the ethical baggage. But there are some lingering doubts that the induced cells are truly as flexible as the ones derived from an embryo, leading a number of labs to continue exploring cloning for therapeutic purposes. Now, a collaboration of US and Korean researchers have succeeded in creating early embryos from two adult humans and converted the embryos to embryonic stem cells.

The method used is called somatic cell nuclear transplant. It involves taking an unfertilized egg and removing its nucleus, thereby deleting the DNA of the egg donor. At the same time, a nucleus from the cell of a donor is carefully removed and injected into the egg. After some time, during which the environment of the egg resets the developmental status of the donor's DNA, cell division is activated. If the process is successful, the end result is a small cluster of cells that starts along the path of forming an embryo.

This technique was recently used to create embryonic stem cells from an infant donor. But the new team managed to perform the technique successfully with two male donors, one 35 years old and the second 75. The primary change needed was simply to extend the period in which the donor DNA is reset by the proteins present in the egg.

After the resulting cells divided long enough to form a blastocyst (an early stage of embryonic development), they were harvested and converted to embryonic stem cells. The researchers showed that the resulting stem cells could form all of the major tissues of a mature embryo, as close as you can come to demonstrated stem-cellness with human samples.

In mice and many other animals, however, it's possible to simply allow the cells to keep growing and implant them into a female at the appropriate stage. And that's what's striking about this research: there doesn't appear to be anything keeping it from being done in humans. The efficiency in many other mammals is low and sometimes results in aberrant growth. But, given enough attempts, there are no obvious barriers between this work and a cloned human.

The authors avoid discussing this implication completely, focusing instead on its therapeutic potential.

Coming soon: personalized clones from which you can harvest organs and body parts for replacement as needed.

That seems unlikely. Why expend all the energy and time to grow a whole human - not to mention the ethical concerns - instead of only growing the parts you need?

Well, I would expect it's more like growing an organism that contains all the parts you might need on a very quick turnaround.

Growing new body parts will take some time, if you found yourself in a situation that needed a transplant very quickly you may not be able to wait, having a set sitting around waiting would be a good policy.

Coming soon: personalized clones from which you can harvest organs and body parts for replacement as needed.

That seems unlikely. Why expend all the energy and time to grow a whole human - not to mention the ethical concerns - instead of only growing the parts you need?

Because it is literally faster to grow the whole human than to grow the organs.

Say I needed to replace my liver/spleen/heart.

Create 15 clones and 15 surrogates. Literally 9 months later (assuming a 1 in 15 success rate) there will be an infant sized kidney/liver/spleen/heart. If dosed with the right chemicals the infant will be brain dead and the body can be put on life support while the organs mature. Then it's a question of time before the organs are sufficiently large for implantation. Worst case it will be 12 or so years.

Are you claiming that we will have the ability to grow whole organs within 12 years?

Clones humans are exactly the least interesting thing about this.Sure, it's sensationalist, but also obscuring the larger point.Can we please talk about cloned stem cell without jumping to "Gattaca", or variants?I'm interested in induced stem cell regenerative therapies. Who cares about clones people?

Clones humans are exactly the least interesting thing about this.Sure, it's sensationalist, but also obscuring the larger point.Can we please talk about cloned stem cell without jumping to "Gattaca", or variants?I'm interested in induced stem cell regenerative therapies. Who cares about clones people?

Apparently nobody cares about the clones, the life they might have lead if not destroyed for the benefit of others, or the rights they should have as human beings.

Coming soon: personalized clones from which you can harvest organs and body parts for replacement as needed.

That seems unlikely. Why expend all the energy and time to grow a whole human - not to mention the ethical concerns - instead of only growing the parts you need?

Because it is literally faster to grow the whole human than to grow the organs.

Say I needed to replace my liver/spleen/heart.

Create 15 clones and 15 surrogates. Literally 9 months later (assuming a 1 in 15 success rate) there will be an infant sized kidney/liver/spleen/heart. If dosed with the right chemicals the infant will be brain dead and the body can be put on life support while the organs mature. Then it's a question of time before the organs are sufficiently large for implantation. Worst case it will be 12 or so years.

Are you claiming that we will have the ability to grow whole organs within 12 years?

It is not "literally faster." There would be nothing quicker about growing an entire human being versus growing a single organ. In order for you to have spare parts on hand for when yours may start failing, you'd have to begin cloning yourself sometime in childhood. The clone would grow as you do.

But, if you're going to have to wait anyway, why not just grow the organ? It would be cheaper (less mass and less energy) and would neatly avoid any ethical arguments others might raise. Also, given current experiments in regenerative and reconstructive techniques, new organs could very likely be 3-D printed or grown on pre-built bio-scaffolds. And those methods will be much quicker and cheaper than naturally growing a clone.

All that aside, this is some very interesting work. I'm really looking forward to the future of medicine.

Edited to add: We just may be able to grow replacement organs in twelve years. I imagine the FDA approvals would lengthen the wait till commercial availability, though.

Coming soon: personalized clones from which you can harvest organs and body parts for replacement as needed.

That seems unlikely. Why expend all the energy and time to grow a whole human - not to mention the ethical concerns - instead of only growing the parts you need?

Because it is literally faster to grow the whole human than to grow the organs.

Say I needed to replace my liver/spleen/heart.

Create 15 clones and 15 surrogates. Literally 9 months later (assuming a 1 in 15 success rate) there will be an infant sized kidney/liver/spleen/heart. If dosed with the right chemicals the infant will be brain dead and the body can be put on life support while the organs mature. Then it's a question of time before the organs are sufficiently large for implantation. Worst case it will be 12 or so years.

Are you claiming that we will have the ability to grow whole organs within 12 years?

It is not "literally faster." There would be nothing quicker about growing an entire human being versus growing a single organ. In order for you to have spare parts on hand for when yours may start failing, you'd have to begin cloning yourself sometime in childhood. The clone would grow as you do.

But, if you're going to have to wait anyway, why not just grow the organ? It would be cheaper (less mass and less energy) and would neatly avoid any ethical arguments others might raise. Also, given current experiments in regenerative and reconstructive techniques, new organs could very likely be 3-D printed or grown on pre-built bio-scaffolds. And those methods will be much quicker and cheaper than naturally growing a clone.

All that aside, this is some very interesting work. I'm really looking forward to the future of medicine.

Edited to add: We just may be able to grow replacement organs in twelve years. I imagine the FDA approvals would lengthen the wait till commercial availability, though.

1) Said ability to grow replacement organs doesn't exist2) You have admitted that even if said ability is to be developed it will likely take longer than 12 years3) Ergo it is, as I said, literally faster to grow a person, today, than to grow an organ

Actually researchers can already grow cloned human organs onto bio-scaffold. I remember they've been able to use pig kidney and hearts to wash away the cells with a specific shampoo that leaves the scaffold intact and grow human cells onto it to make a perfect match organ for the recipient of a transplant. Don't think it's been put into clinical trials yet, but it is already doable.

I'll poke around for a link in a bit, believe I saw it in a special... I think it was presented by Michio Kaku and had to do with extending life. Edit: Through the Wormhole: Can We Live Forever? might be what I'm thinking of.

It doesn't seem like it would be too different to use instead of a complete set of DNA from a single person either DNA from two eggs or two sperm, allowing same-sex couples to have children together. That seems like a significant market.

Coming soon: personalized clones from which you can harvest organs and body parts for replacement as needed.

That seems unlikely. Why expend all the energy and time to grow a whole human - not to mention the ethical concerns - instead of only growing the parts you need?

Because it is literally faster to grow the whole human than to grow the organs.

Say I needed to replace my liver/spleen/heart.

Create 15 clones and 15 surrogates. Literally 9 months later (assuming a 1 in 15 success rate) there will be an infant sized kidney/liver/spleen/heart. If dosed with the right chemicals the infant will be brain dead and the body can be put on life support while the organs mature. Then it's a question of time before the organs are sufficiently large for implantation. Worst case it will be 12 or so years.

Are you claiming that we will have the ability to grow whole organs within 12 years?

It is not "literally faster." There would be nothing quicker about growing an entire human being versus growing a single organ. In order for you to have spare parts on hand for when yours may start failing, you'd have to begin cloning yourself sometime in childhood. The clone would grow as you do.

But, if you're going to have to wait anyway, why not just grow the organ? It would be cheaper (less mass and less energy) and would neatly avoid any ethical arguments others might raise. Also, given current experiments in regenerative and reconstructive techniques, new organs could very likely be 3-D printed or grown on pre-built bio-scaffolds. And those methods will be much quicker and cheaper than naturally growing a clone.

All that aside, this is some very interesting work. I'm really looking forward to the future of medicine.

Edited to add: We just may be able to grow replacement organs in twelve years. I imagine the FDA approvals would lengthen the wait till commercial availability, though.

1) Said ability to grow replacement organs doesn't exist2) You have admitted that even if said ability is to be developed it will likely take longer than 12 years3) Ergo it is, as I said, literally faster to grow a person, today, than to grow an organ

Actually researchers can already grow cloned human organs onto bio-scaffold. I remember they've been able to use pig kidney and hearts to wash away the cells with a specific shampoo that leaves the scaffold intact and grow human cells onto it to make a perfect match organ for the recipient of a transplant. Don't think it's been put into clinical trials yet, but it is already doable.

I'll poke around for a link in a bit, believe I saw it in a special... I think it was presented by Michio Kaku and had to do with extending life. Edit: Through the Wormhole: Can We Live Forever? might be what I'm thinking of.

Coming soon: personalized clones from which you can harvest organs and body parts for replacement as needed.

That seems unlikely. Why expend all the energy and time to grow a whole human - not to mention the ethical concerns - instead of only growing the parts you need?

Because it is literally faster to grow the whole human than to grow the organs.

Say I needed to replace my liver/spleen/heart.

Create 15 clones and 15 surrogates. Literally 9 months later (assuming a 1 in 15 success rate) there will be an infant sized kidney/liver/spleen/heart. If dosed with the right chemicals the infant will be brain dead and the body can be put on life support while the organs mature. Then it's a question of time before the organs are sufficiently large for implantation. Worst case it will be 12 or so years.

Are you claiming that we will have the ability to grow whole organs within 12 years?

It is not "literally faster." There would be nothing quicker about growing an entire human being versus growing a single organ. In order for you to have spare parts on hand for when yours may start failing, you'd have to begin cloning yourself sometime in childhood. The clone would grow as you do.

But, if you're going to have to wait anyway, why not just grow the organ? It would be cheaper (less mass and less energy) and would neatly avoid any ethical arguments others might raise. Also, given current experiments in regenerative and reconstructive techniques, new organs could very likely be 3-D printed or grown on pre-built bio-scaffolds. And those methods will be much quicker and cheaper than naturally growing a clone.

All that aside, this is some very interesting work. I'm really looking forward to the future of medicine.

Edited to add: We just may be able to grow replacement organs in twelve years. I imagine the FDA approvals would lengthen the wait till commercial availability, though.

1) Said ability to grow replacement organs doesn't exist2) You have admitted that even if said ability is to be developed it will likely take longer than 12 years3) Ergo it is, as I said, literally faster to grow a person, today, than to grow an organ

1) Said ability to readily clone whole humans doesn't exist, either.2) I am a pragmatist and am well aware that much work needs to be done before ready-made organs are viable. You should also be aware just how unlikely it would be to get the regulatory approvals needed to even attempt what you have suggested, let alone within twelve years.3) Ergo, it is still not literally faster to grow a person than just an organ.

Note that point #2 doesn't include convincing women to give you the necessary eggs, a lab to do the nucleus swaps, and potentially several women to try to carry the embryos to term. Nor does it include the medical staff that would be needed to provide the care and support for the newborn organ donors; vegetables or not, the bodies would need maintenance.

It may take 20 years to get to the point of growing individual replacement organs and using them, but it'll take a lot longer for cloned whole-body donors to be allowed, let alone accepted by society at large.

Coming soon: personalized clones from which you can harvest organs and body parts for replacement as needed.

It doesn't matter, you can't fix the brain. We already seeing the effect of keeping the body alive with the rise in dementia.

The human brain has a use-by date of about 100 or so years.

You can't fix the brain...yet. I see no reason why we cant prolong the life of an organ infinitely or just replace it altogether. We know there are cells that can live forever. It doesnt require a huge stretch of the imagination to think in the next 100 years we might be able to translate this knowledge into immortal or near immortal organs.

Right now, the brain seems infinitely complex. Within 50 years I guarantee we will have at least a solid idea of how to fix/replace the brain(with memories and all). Give it another 50 to implement it.

Coming soon: personalized clones from which you can harvest organs and body parts for replacement as needed.

It doesn't matter, you can't fix the brain. We already seeing the effect of keeping the body alive with the rise in dementia.

The human brain has a use-by date of about 100 or so years.

I'm not so sure about that use date. Sure the brain can sustain some damage, but most are caused by ailement around it except for neuro-degenerative diseases. Now fixing those diseases is what could keep us around much longer. And we also trick the brain into reestablishing new neuron contact with stem cell turned neuron. The good thing with the brain is the blood-brain barrier that filters out a lot of crap. It do become less efficient when getting older though.

Actually researchers can already grow cloned human organs onto bio-scaffold. I remember they've been able to use pig kidney and hearts to wash away the cells with a specific shampoo that leaves the scaffold intact and grow human cells onto it to make a perfect match organ for the recipient of a transplant. Don't think it's been put into clinical trials yet, but it is already doable.

I'll poke around for a link in a bit, believe I saw it in a special... I think it was presented by Michio Kaku and had to do with extending life. Edit: Through the Wormhole: Can We Live Forever? might be what I'm thinking of.

Dolly the sheep was a clone. Clones of people have serious ethical, legal, and moral issues surrounding them that have yet to be completely worked out. Someone cloning a person, given those issues, is very close to being a kind of mad scientist. If some lab did that, I'd expect to see some legal and ethical reactions to the work as well as what the work involved.

This is a technique for cloning stem cells. It's important and useful, and possibly offers a way to avoid the ethical, legal, and moral issues associated with cloning people and those associated with harvesting embryos while still allowing for research on embryonic stem cells. That is the work of a responsible scientist.

If you can't see the difference and don't understand why the lab in question didn't allow an embryo to form before harvesting the stem cells, I think that maybe you aren't qualified to write about it.

Dolly the sheep was a clone. Clones of people have serious ethical, legal, and moral issues surrounding them that have yet to be completely worked out. Someone cloning a person, given those issues, is very close to being a kind of mad scientist. If some lab did that, I'd expect to see some legal and ethical reactions to the work as well as what the work involved.

This is a technique for cloning stem cells. It's important and useful, and possibly offers a way to avoid the ethical, legal, and moral issues associated with cloning people and those associated with harvesting embryos while still allowing for research on embryonic stem cells. That is the work of a responsible scientist.

If you can't see the difference and don't understand why the lab in question didn't allow an embryo to form before harvesting the stem cells, I think that maybe you aren't qualified to write about it.

Dolly the sheep was a clone. Clones of people have serious ethical, legal, and moral issues surrounding them that have yet to be completely worked out. Someone cloning a person, given those issues, is very close to being a kind of mad scientist. If some lab did that, I'd expect to see some legal and ethical reactions to the work as well as what the work involved.

This is a technique for cloning stem cells. It's important and useful, and possibly offers a way to avoid the ethical, legal, and moral issues associated with cloning people and those associated with harvesting embryos while still allowing for research on embryonic stem cells. That is the work of a responsible scientist.

If you can't see the difference and don't understand why the lab in question didn't allow an embryo to form before harvesting the stem cells, I think that maybe you aren't qualified to write about it.

Wow. I think you are the one not understanding what they did. Whether "they allow an embryo to form" (to quote you since you don't seem to understand what an embryo is) or not, they still effectively cloned that 75 year old person.What I would like to hear about is how "fresh" the DNA ends being since telomers are likely to be shorter and have an impact on the quality of the cloned cells even if the article mentions that there are no major issues developing as far as they could and still remain considered as stem cells.

Clones humans are exactly the least interesting thing about this.Sure, it's sensationalist, but also obscuring the larger point.Can we please talk about cloned stem cell without jumping to "Gattaca", or variants?I'm interested in induced stem cell regenerative therapies. Who cares about clones people?

Apparently nobody cares about the clones, the life they might have lead if not destroyed for the benefit of others, or the rights they should have as human beings.

Nobody should care about cloning people because it is pointless. Why spend a bunch of money to produce Einstein's 100 + year younger identical twin, who we have NO reason to think will have any interest in physics, and could well decide to be a fry cook who spends all his free time downloading porn and facebooking? No one's DNA is so awesome that we need to replicate it.

As far as the rights of theoretical clones, I don't see any reason for concern. They're as human as anyone else, as any DNA test will confirm.